On 17/04/10 21:26, Don Stewart wrote:
> magnus:
>> I notice that haddock documentation isn't built into binary packages
>> (haskell-dataenc, haskell-network, etc), while it is shipped with GHC
>> itself. Furthermore, all packages built from AUR will include haddock
>> documentation by default.
>>>> Is there any reason for *not* shipping haddock documentation with all
>> pre-built packages?
>>>> At the moment this is causing me grief because haskell mode for vim
>> relies on local documentation for features like "add import statement
>> for identifier under the cursor", and with the current situation it
>> will only find identifiers in GHC and AUR-built packages.
>> I think all our packages should ship with documentation (they should be of
> the form generated by cabal2arch, effectively)
I agree. So, is there a way of filing identical bugs against a large-ish
number of packages in Arch?
/M
--
Magnus Therning (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4)
magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org
http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/arch-haskell/attachments/20100418/c262f520/signature.bin